ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #68

Status
Not open for further replies.

We are in the courtroom. Lori Vallow Daybell is present. She is smiling and talking quietly with her attorneys.

Judge Boyce says this hearing will be about the attendance of victims in the case "as it relates to the exclusionary rule". That is about excluding certain witnesses from being present during other testimony.

Boyce: The legal issue today the court wants to discuss is "who is a legally defined victim who would not be subject to the exclusionary order the court just ordered."

Boyce now asking the prosecution who will be in attendance that could fit the legal definition of a victim. Rob Wood saying the court's interpretation of a victim should include anyone who suffers emotional harm as the result of an offense.

He believes Kay and Larry Woodcock should be considered victims in the case. That's JJ's grandparents who we expect to be present at the trial. Also adding Summer Shiftlet (Lori's sister) and Colby Ryan (Lori's son, JJ and Tylee's brother) to be considered.

Lori's attorneys responding -- "we believe the only victim under Idaho code [...] Colby Ryan would be the only one who qualifies as a victim". The defense team does not believe JJ's grandparents or Lori's sister should fit the legal definition.

Archibald: The children of Tammy Daybell would be considered victims but as far as the defense knows, they do not plan to attend the trial.

Archibald is asking the judge to exclude Summer Shiftlet and Kay and Larry Woodcock from the victim list.

Rob Wood is arguing JJ's grandparents, the Woodcocks, should absolutely fit the definition of victim and be allowed to watch the trial. They're discussing the definition of an "immediate family member".

Archibald citing Idaho adoption laws - says since Kay's son terminated legal parental rights, she's no longer legally JJ's grandma. "No one is kicking a grandma out of the courtroom. The only grandma would be Lori's parents or Tammy's parents."

Boyce will not make a decision today and will issue a written ruling on who will be considered a victim in the case, therefore who would be permitted to be present during portions of testimony. Prosecution and defense must submit supplemental briefings by 5pm Friday.

They will meet privately now on "administrative" topics related to courtroom seating etc. Court is adjourned.
I'm shocked that the judge actually needs time to decide if JJ's grandparents are victims. If it were not for them, Lori would have never been caught. I'm not impressed with this judge at all.
 
Canadian lawyer here. In Canadian criminal trials, all witnesses (except experts) are typically excluded prior to their testimony - what the Crown will do is call the mother of the victim (for example) first, and that way the mom can then sit through the trial and there is no risk her testimony will be viewed as tainted by prior evidence. Let the State call the GPs first - they will let the jury know how deeply loved JJ was. Not a bad thing at all. And the GPs can then sit through the trial - unless this exclusion order is broader?
 
Way back when this all started if I remember right.

At one point, didn't JJ and Tylee basically become wards of the state? Did Kay and Larry ever get guardianship?


ETA: I feel the decision was postponed pending investigation (maybe????)
 
Last edited:
I am still wondering what Chad’s plan is. Maybe his lawyer told him not to file for divorce until Lori’s trial is over so no one would feel sorry for her.

Then again, I wonder if Lori is trying to make a deal so that Chad gets stuck with all the charges along with Alex.

There really is no trying to figure out these two deranged murderers.
 
Why should it be limited to only the closest family? The Woodcocks are JJ's bio grandparents, even if their son terminated his parental rights. They maintained their relationship with him.

I don't know. Victims, witnesses, immediate family... It seems a terrible mess to me. I don't like this apparent quandary AT ALL :( It's certainly not fair to any of the family members and going downhill fast (since Judge B's ruling not allowing family (who cannot travel) real-time access to the trial (imo)
 
It's a legit legal issue. Those who are ON THE WITNESS LIST are usually not allowed to hear testimony of others, in an attempt to keep their testimony independent. Family is generally no exception. It's an issue of biased testimony, and the opportunity to tailor it to fit other testimony. Justice is best served with witnesses who are having to speak to their OWN knowledge only, and unable to hear what other testimony has said.

My sister was in a trial a few years ago. I was her main emotional and familial and custodial support at the time, at a time when she was very fragile in every way. But I was potentially a witness, on the list, and I was not allowed to be in the courtroom for the testimony in her case, because of the rule. (And ultimately, I wasn't even called to testify. I was just on the list of those who might testify.)

Our choice was to take me off the witness list, or wait outside. I sat alone outside.
Buster Murdough was in court every day during Alex Murdaugh’s trial. He was a witness who testified for the defense.
 
Buster Murdough was in court every day during Alex Murdaugh’s trial. He was a witness who testified for the defense.

Same with the family members of victims in the William Husel trial in Ohio in 2022. They were called as witnesses and remained in the courtroom throughout. Maybe it depends on the state??
 
Yes, the exact rule about witnesses being allowed to attend other parts of a trial vary from state to state. And in most (if not all) states, in some cases the rule might not be applied for one reason or another (which is what they are wrangling about here).

I've even seen the variation from one case to another be switched in that same case. It was in a minor case (traffic court) where the rule was invoked by the prosecution, and then shortly thereafter they said, "Never mind." The stakes were much lower then, than in this case, of course.

Here's a good, easy-to-understand article about how the rule works in State of Texas cases (where it's actually called "The Rule" in a courtroom), with a side note about its application in federal courts.


 
Last edited:
Same with the family members of victims in the William Husel trial in Ohio in 2022. They were called as witnesses and remained in the courtroom throughout. Maybe it depends on the state??
DBM
 
So it seems that the whole issue is who Judge Boyce is going to consider a 'victim' in this case and if he should make an exception to the exclusionary rule that exists in Idaho. That is the way I interpret it.


BOISE, Idaho — A last-minute hearing was scheduled in the Lori Vallow Daybell case and held at the Ada County Courthouse Wednesday morning.

Judge Steven Boyce called the hearing to publicly discuss the legal definition of a "victim" and who it would apply to in this case.

RELATED | Timeline recap: Lori Vallow Daybell case

Judge Boyce issued an order that would exclude witnesses from sitting in on certain testimony, but victims in the case could be exceptions. The question is, who is legally considered a victim?
Madison County Prosecutor Rob Wood argued the court's interpretation of a victim should include anyone who suffers emotional harm as the result of an offense. He pointed to JJ's grandparents, Kay and Larry Woodcock, who he believes fit the definition and should be allowed to watch the entirety of the trial.
Wood also argued Lori's sister, Summer Shiflet, and Lori's son, Colby Ryan, should be considered victims in the case. Shiflet is the aunt of JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan. Colby Ryan is the half-brother of the two deceased children.
Lori's defense team responded saying they believe Colby Ryan is the only relative who fits the legal definition of a victim since he is a sibling of the deceased victims. Archibald argued aunts and grandparents should not be considered victims.
Archibald also argued the children of Tammy Daybell would fit the legal definition of victims in the case, but said he does not believe they plan to be present at the trial.
Archibald then discussed Idaho adoption laws and argued since JJ's biological parents gave up their legal parental rights, that means Kay Woodcock is no longer legally JJ's grandmother.


Archibald says Kay Woodcock "gave herself" the name of "Grandma". He argued since she is Charles Vallow's sister, she is actually JJ's aunt, and therefore not an immediate family member that would meet the legal definition of a victim in the case.
Judge Boyce will consider the arguments and will issue a written ruling on who will be considered a victim in the case, therefore who would be permitted to be present during portions of testimony by early next week.
 
Maybe only Colby and Tylee's aunt are the "closest" bio family or ?? This is confusing.
I agree with the prosecutors' main point: family is not what defines victim.

I wish the prosecutors would hammer that, and stop letting the defense change the subject to bio vs. adopted and the definition of immediate family.

In addition, they all should focus on the possible consequences of allowing a person who is both a witness and a victim see the whole trial. A witness who has testified before a grand jury and/or in depos, and who has been interviewed on tape by LE, and who has been basically consistent and forthcoming is not in a position to credibly change such testimony.

On the other hand, a witness/victim who has said little on the record or who has conflicting testimony/statements to LE would be a bigger risk to allow to see the whole trial and to be influenced by it.

I think both the prosecution and the defense should discuss the actual risks as applied to each witness, and not devolve to BS like terminated parental rights. It's irrelevant. The judge should just shut down discussion of legal relations and insist on discussing if a person is a victim (not if they are family) and if there is a real risk of testimony being influenced by watching the trial.

Sometimes I can't with the the lot of them: prosecution, defense and judge. But they are not on trial right now.

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
1,539
Total visitors
1,674

Forum statistics

Threads
589,181
Messages
17,915,209
Members
227,746
Latest member
nmdigital
Back
Top